Posted on 09/08/2019 10:30:02 PM PDT by Rocky
Readers of Watts Up With That will know from Mark I that for six years I have been trying to publish a manuscript with the post title. Well, it has passed peer review and is now published at Frontiers in Earth Science: Atmospheric Science. The paper demonstrates that climate models have no predictive value.
------------
From the perspective of physical science, it is very reasonable to conclude that any effect of CO₂ emissions is beyond present resolution, and even reasonable to suppose that any possible effect may be so small as to be undetectable within natural variation. Nothing among the present climate observables is in any way unusual.
The analysis upsets the entire IPCC applecart. It eviscerates the EPA’s endangerment finding, and removes climate alarm from the US 2020 election. There is no evidence whatever that CO₂ emissions have increased, are increasing, will increase, or even can increase, global average surface air temperature.
The analysis is straight-forward. It could have been done, and should have been done, 30 years ago. But was not.
(Excerpt) Read more at wattsupwiththat.com ...
Yes, and government will not fund research that says there is no problem. If a scientist came back with, "We could not determine that mankind's contribution to the climate was significant," there would be no more funding. Senator Foghorn would ask, "Why should we spend any more money on something that is not a problem?" So the only research that gets funded is alarmist research.
An excellent point. One would think that the people developing the models would think of that as well. In fact, I am sure they have thought of it. So, it is either willful blindness on their part, or intended deception. What a bad stain they are putting on science.
Yes, and it is because those scientists were willing to pay the cost of ostracism by mean-spirited partisan faux scientists that we have been able to see through the hoax. I am very grateful for the courageous ones who have punched holes in the alarmist propaganda. Science in our day has been abused to satisfy the needs of socialists, doomsday wackos, and self-serving people on various government and university payrolls.
Since democrat campaign issues are basically based on lies, how is this LIE going to be removed?
You don't expect Bernie/Booty/CreepyJoe/Kamel/Pocahauntus/Sparticus to just stop because it is proven false, do you?
The only way to get the Democrats to stop talking about this end-of-the-world garbage is to show the public that it's utter nonsense. I don't see that happening by 2020. But polls consistently show that the majority of Americans are not buying their hogwash. There is hope, eventually.
As a software professional with 30+ years experience, most of it in modeling and simulation, much of it in large scale modeling of complex systems... I’ve said for years what the climate scammers are doing with the climate models is just wrong, a complete travesty to real M&S people.
CBS will be interviewing that little twit this morning.
The climate change scam is well funded at all levels.
There is a book, Longitude by Dava Sobel, that should be required reading in Jr. & Senior High science courses.
It’s tale - about the development of the means for mariners to know true longitude at sea, at all times (and how involved in that process were governments) and it closely resembles the current bad state of affairs between true science and those cast as “official” scientists by either their government appointment or their funding by government, & how that funding is a two-way street that corrupts both that funding and science.
In another sense it is about how easily corruption & power seduces humans to put the possession of power, and keeping it - including the power of being the “official authority” on something, above scientific truth. It is a truth in any age; no less in the days of the hero portrayed in Longitude than today.
I read that book (Longitude) years ago. It is an excellent book.
scam of the century
Nick Stokes has posted an article at Watts Up With That which says in the conclusion that Pat Frank’s analysis of error propagation was flawed.
Roy Spencer also refutes Pat Frank’s conclusion:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/13/a-stove-top-analogy-to-climate-models/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.